New Energy Economy Emerging in the United States
by Lester Brown, Washington, D.C 
on 11.12.08
Japanese Wind God, by Ogata Korin
Lester R. Brown
A new energy economy is emerging in the United States. As I note in a recent Update, the old energy economy, fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas, is being replaced by one powered by wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The transition is moving at a pace and on a scale that we could not have imagined even a year ago.
Consider Texas. Long the leading oil-producing state, it is now also the leading generator of electricity from wind, having overtaken California two years ago. Texas now has nearly 6,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity online and a staggering 39,000 megawatts in the construction and planning stages. When all this is completed, Texas will have 45,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity (think 45 coal-fired power plants). This will more than satisfy the residential needs of the state's 24 million people, enabling Texas to feed electricity to nearby states such as Louisiana and Mississippi.
After Texas and California, the other leaders among the 30 states with commercial-scale wind farms are Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, and Colorado. And other states are emerging as wind superpowers. Clipper Windpower and BP are teaming up to build the 5,050-megawatt Titan wind farm, the world's largest, in eastern South Dakota. Already under development, Titan will generate five times as much electricity as the state's 780,000 residents currently use. This project includes building a transmission line along an abandoned rail line across Iowa, feeding electricity into Illinois and the country's industrial heartland.
Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz is developing a 2,000-megawatt wind farm in south central Wyoming. He already has secured the rights to build a 900-mile high-voltage transmission line to California. With this investment, the door will be opened to developing scores of huge wind farms in Wyoming, a wind-rich state with few people. Another transmission line under development will run north-south, linking eastern Wyoming's wind resources with the fast-growing Colorado cities of Fort Collins, Denver, and Colorado Springs. Wind-rich Kansas and Oklahoma are looking to build a transmission line to the U.S. Southeast to export their wealth of cheap wind energy.
California is developing a 4,500-megawatt wind farm complex in the Tehachapi Mountains northwest of Los Angeles. In the east, Maine--a wind energy newcomer--is planning to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity, far more than the state's 1.3 million residents need. Further south, Delaware is planning an offshore wind farm of up to 600 megawatts, which could satisfy half of the state's residential electricity needs. New York State, which has 700 megawatts of wind-generating capacity, plans to add another 8,000 megawatts, with most of the power being generated by winds coming off Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. And soon Oregon will nearly double its wind generating capacity with a 900-megawatt wind farm in the wind-rich Columbia River Gorge.
Wind appears destined to become the centerpiece of the new U.S. energy economy, eventually supplying several hundred thousand megawatts of electricity.
Solar power is also expanding at a breakneck pace. The nation's wealth of solar energy is being harnessed by using both photovoltaic cells and solar thermal power plants to convert sunlight into electricity. For solar cell installations, California, with its Million Solar Roofs plan, is far and away the leader. New Jersey is also moving fast, followed by Nevada.
The largest U.S. solar cell installation today is a 14-megawatt array at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, but photovoltaic electricity at the commercial level is about to go big time. PG&E has entered into two solar cell power contracts with a combined capacity of 800 megawatts. Together, these plants will cover 12 square miles of desert with solar cells and will have a peak output comparable to that of a large coal-fired power plant.
Solar power plants are appealing in hot climates because their highest output coincides with the peak demand for air conditioning.
Solar thermal plants that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a vessel containing a fluid--heating it to 750 degrees Fahrenheit to generate steam and produce power--have suddenly become an enormously attractive technology. The United States has the world's only large solar thermal complex, a 350-megawatt project completed in 1991. But as of September 2008 there are 10 large solar thermal power plants under construction or in development in the United States, ranging in size from 180 megawatts to 550 megawatts.
Eight of the plants will be built in California, one in Arizona, and one in Florida. Within the next three years, the United States will likely go from 420 megawatts of solar thermal generating capacity to close to 3,500 megawatts--an eightfold jump.
Along with wind and solar, geothermal energy is also developing at an explosive rate. As of 2008 the United States has nearly 3,000 megawatts of geothermal generating capacity, 2,500 of which are in California. Suddenly this too is changing. Some 96 geothermal power plants now under development in twelve western states are expected to double U.S. geothermal generating capacity. With California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah leading the way, the stage is set for the massive future development of geothermal energy. (See .
The new energy economy will be powered largely by electricity from renewable sources. Electricity will light, heat, and cool buildings. As we shift to plug-in hybrid cars, light rail transit systems in cities, and high-speed electric intercity rail systems like those in Japan and Europe, our transport system will also be powered largely by electricity.
It is historically rare for so many interests to converge at one time and in one place as those now supporting the development of renewable energy resources in the United States. To begin with, shifting to renewables increases energy security simply because no one can cut off the supply of wind, solar, or geothermal energy. It also avoids the price volatility that has plagued oil and natural gas in recent decades. Once a wind farm or a solar thermal power plant is built, the price is stable since there is no fuel cost. Turning to renewables will also dramatically cut carbon emissions, moving us toward climate stability and thus avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change.
The shift also will staunch the outflow of dollars for oil, keeping that capital at home to invest in the new energy economy, developing national renewable energy resources and creating jobs here. At a time of economic turmoil and rising joblessness, these new industries can generate thousands of new jobs each week. Not only are the wind, solar, and geothermal industries hiring new workers, they are also generating jobs in construction and in basic supply industries such as steel, aluminum, and silicon
manufacturing. To build and operate the new energy economy will require huge numbers of electricians, plumbers, and roofers. It will also employ countless numbers of high-tech professionals such as wind meteorologists, geothermal geologists, and solar engineers.
To ensure that this shift to renewables continues at a rapid rate, national leadership is needed in one key area--building a strong national grid. Although private investors are investing in long-distance high-voltage transmission lines, these need to be incorporated into a carefully planned national grid, the electrical equivalent of President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, in order to unleash the full potential of renewable energy wealth.
And, finally, this energy transition is being driven by an intense excitement from the realization that people are now tapping energy sources that can last as long as the earth itself. Oil wells go dry and coal seams run out, but for the first time since the industrial revolution we are investing in energy sources that can last forever. This new energy economy can be our legacy to the next generation.
For more information on Earth Policy Institute's plan to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020, see Chapters 11-13 in , available for free
downloading.
Also see Time for Plan B: Cutting Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2020, available in pdf.
Image credit: Wikipedia, Ogata Korin
More Alternatives From TreeHugger Archives
Mapping the Alternative Energy Potential of the United States .....
Chile Signs Agreement with California for Alternative Energy ...
Wave Power - Alternative Energy Available Today
Large-Scale Alternative Energy Projects Facing Credit Crunch ...
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Use a Solar Oven: Beans and Rice Recipe
- Holter Visits the Homestead National Monument of America, Thinks Your Should Too
- Holter Graham Visits the Future: Wind Farms Across the Midwest
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- How to Use a Solar Cooker: What Works and What Doesn't
- Are You at Risk From Wind Turbine Syndrome?
It is inappropriate to say that 1,000 MW of wind is equivalent to 1 large coal plant. New coal plants are generally operated at around 100% of capacity 24/7. The best wind installations operate at an average of about 30% capacity.
So, in terms of annual energy production, 1000MW of coal plant is comparable to about 3000MW of wind plant.
In terms of schedulable supply, it may take more than 10 times as much wind capacity to guarantee the same output as a coal plant.
=== editor response follows ===
Point taken. But it worth mentioning in parallel that wind turbines emit no lung cancer and asthma provoking particulates or sulfates, and that wind does not emit poisonous mercury and acid rain that kills trees.
All of this is VERY exciting news. I am dead set on going to law school, and lately (probably due to my treehugger experience) I've been considering specializing in possibly green tech contract law. I think this would be a very exciting career path and as well would be helpful to the environment!
Solar seems to be about a decade behind wind in terms of growth, and at 30% annual growth rates that means a 10-fold difference. Even though wind soon will be and is going to be the biggest renewable energy source for a while, solar power will eventually claim that title simply because there is more of it around.
Still, it'll take another 20-40 years of 20-30% annual growth for renewable power to displace fossil fuels from our electric mix entirely, and there is a lot of work to do between now and then to make it happen and to make the new (and better) system work.
Cut wood and carry water - Block and tackle - it time to empower the individuals that helped elect Obama and draft legislation that can be used to build new markets for renewable to prosper.
Tax polluters and incentives the entrepreneurs across the country – Carbon Leverage ™ will bring large corporation to the table to invest and enable new growth.
- Limit ownership positions in alternative energy start ups to avoid having the same old corporations running renewable.
- Mandate that all sustainable resources that are cultivated from specific region of country pay back those regions with affordable energy, cheaper fuel or rebates.
- That’s Change!
Feel free to add to this list – localized work is under way at www.otoyk.com
"New coal plants are generally operated at around 100% of capacity 24/7."
Absolutely not true. The capacity factor for coal is certainly higher than wind. It is generally about 70-75% for coal versus 30% for wind. So 1000MW of wind power capacity is about the same as 400MW of coal power capacity.
The other important difference is that fossil fuel power is dispatchable. Humans decide when to burn coal, whereas nature decides when the wind will blow (though we can forecast it quite well). While wind and solar currently have nowhere near a high enough penetration on the US grid for their intermittency for this to be a problem (some say that happens around 20%, some say 50%, and other 10%), at some point they will. By then we'd better have a national grid (since lack of wind right now, here can be compensated for by extra solar somewhere else). Hopefully it will be a smart grid (to help manage demand so energy gets used when it is most abundant) that can make use of the batteries in electric cars. And after that we'll need to invest in energy storage. Either industries, or homes, or both should have batteries that store enough power to get through times of too-low production and to absorb extra power when supply exceeds demand. This really isn't much different that people having a propane-powered generator to deal with outages.
By the way, it's great to see such an upbeat, hopeful article. Sorry if my comments dampen the good mood.
Absolutely agree that a shift to renewables is essential for the future energy needs and jobs economy for the United States. However, we also need to focus on making products more energy efficient - regardless of how they may be powered in the future. And that will happen much easier if government and private sector companies work together. The Technology CEO Council has launched a new blog - behindthegreen.org - that seeks to create a dialogue that addresses such matters. Check it out.
"New coal plants are generally operated at around 100% of capacity 24/7."
Absolutely not true. The capacity factor for coal is certainly higher than wind. It is generally about 70-75% for coal versus 30% for wind. So 1000MW of wind power capacity is about the same as 400MW of coal power capacity.
The other important difference is that fossil fuel power is dispatchable. Humans decide when to burn coal, whereas nature decides when the wind will blow (though we can forecast it quite well). While wind and solar currently have nowhere near a high enough penetration on the US grid for their intermittency for this to be a problem (some say that happens around 20%, some say 50%, and other 10%), at some point they will. By then we'd better have a national grid (since lack of wind right now, here can be compensated for by extra solar somewhere else). Hopefully it will be a smart grid (to help manage demand so energy gets used when it is most abundant) that can make use of the batteries in electric cars. And after that we'll need to invest in energy storage. Either industries, or homes, or both should have batteries that store enough power to get through times of too-low production and to absorb extra power when supply exceeds demand. This really isn't much different that people having a propane-powered generator to deal with outages.
By the way, it's great to see such an upbeat, hopeful article. Sorry if my comments dampen the good mood.
Solar power plants are appealing in hot climates because their highest output coincides with the peak demand for air conditioning.
by the way.....this is the cause of economy
solar plants makes a probable cause of economy
Certainly the wind industry is doing well in the US but I don't think renewables will replace coal anytime soon.
Coal has 19GW of capacity under construction in the US. Wind has 9GW under construction. (Other renewables listed as less than 1GW). Data from energy market report at nei.org.
Bill
Inspiring news.
Makes me proud to be a Texan (for a change).
Here's hoping the falling gas prices don't kill all this momentum.
Really great overview - and nice commentary and debate about output and regional differences in coal, wind, and solar and the importance of having a national grid. Sometimes it's nice to have it all summarized to get some perspective.
It's been reported that Austin Energy has the "most successful" program of its kind in GreenChoice (the subscription to wind power at a 10 year locked-in rate), although I'm not sure what the criteria for that statement is. What I do know is that Austin Energy pays for many of the city's programs, and that the demand is so high for the latest subscription offering that a lottery system had to be implemented. Also, between offering rebates and incentives for conservation measures (e.g. washing machines, etc.), and the alternative energy investments, the plans for building coal plants were scaled back considerably.
In case anyone's wondering if the "church indulgence" thing kicks in once you subscribe (as some people accuse carbon offsetters), I can tell you that personally, I'm trying even harder to shave my kw hour number down - there's something about seeing your number next to "Green Choice" that acts as a personal kick in the *ss.
Thanks for this article. If it weren't for the exciting developments in the green sector, this economic nuclear winter would be swallowing me. I just hope we keep plowing ahead - despite the tough decisions we face (like T. Boone Pickens shrinking his windfarm plan - although perhaps that's a good thing?) Cheers.
This is my first visit. I'm Indonesia. Sorry interupt. I just want to say this is the right time to make a move and change our views and start to push our government to develop the green method. Use the biofuel, stop cutting the trees, and also use more nature friendly product. And the most inportant is to change the paradigme that we can't live without oil. We lived in modern world, we could do anything if we really want it. GO GREEN!!
and to think we owe all of this to the efforts of King Obama.
Inspiring news.
Makes me proud to be a Texan (for a change).
Here's hoping the falling gas prices don't kill all this momentum.
November 12, 2008 11:40 PM | flag a problem
retodd says:
----------------------------------------------------------
I think anyone who has any idea about energy knows that energy prices, which have dropped recently, will be back up over 100 dollars within a year.
Without grid improvements, which we do need, how are we going to easily cross and co-mingle our energy supplies between our regional interconnections (Western, Texas, and Eastern)? It's not THAT simple to move Texas-made wind power to Lousiana, let alone Mississippi. Louisiana alone is split into two grids. Wyoming to California will work, with or without 900 miles of new lines, but if they generated in North Dakato, it could be trickier.
http://ina.edf.com/fichiers/fckeditor/Image/EDF%20INA/carte_nerc.jpg
FWIW, I'm no expert on this, but I do recall the blackout a few years ago was limited to the Eastern Interconnection, because the Texas and Western ones do not touch it.
I recommend more study on this, so we know if it is more economical to produce power within each grid, or if we can better bridge those gaps to make our whole continent interconnected.
The wind bubble is being inflated at a pace we couldn't have imagined a year ago.
The public has as of yet not wised up to the fact that the required transmission and storage technology to make proper use of wind isn't being built. The gas and coal operators are surely happy to keep that on the hush-hush as they continue to enjoy greenwashing their coal and gas power through wind turbines.
"=== editor response follows ===
Point taken. But it worth mentioning in parallel that wind turbines emit no lung cancer and asthma provoking particulates or sulfates, and that wind does not emit poisonous mercury and acid rain that kills trees."
Sure it does. "Wind power" is utterly dependent on coal-fired spinning reserve and inefficient simple cycle gas-turbines to provide usable electricity.
Not only can it not replace more than a mere pittence of these energy sources, it makes phasing out coal and gas so much more difficult because the grid and grid storage required to integrate large amounts of wind power without using mostly coal and gas is much too expensive and will never be built.
One way to even out supply and demand from wind is to produce annhydrous ammonia fuel with it.This stores hydrogen in a more compact form than hydrogen by itself.But to do this will require more water sources for hydrogen production.
Water will be the next big resource problem looming on the horizon.It will be made worse by all types of increased water use to produce energy.Eventually,all types of ingenuity will have to be brought to bear to solve this problem as well.
They are also working on ammonia fuel cells which are more efficient than internal combustion engines.The internal combustion is only somewhere about 15-20% efficient,while a fuel cell may be as high as 60-80% efficient.A railroad locomotive can be made to run on ammonia if fuel cells are placed onboard the train.This would conserve diesel fuel for rail transport that now comes from oil.Which means that theoretically,all our trains could run on things like wind,solar,nuclear,geothermal,etc.This leads me to wonder how many wind plants or acres of photovoltaics would it take to move a big locomotive pulling lots of cars of rolling stock?